Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Bob G on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Bob G on 70C At Lisbon
- Bob G on 70C At Lisbon
- Disillusioned on “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Disillusioned on “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Disillusioned on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- arn on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- conrad ziefle on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
I think the monkeys are more likely.
I pity the monkeys.
At least the monkeys are getting out and can fly away!!
Al Gore and the Climategate tale have exposed sixty-nine years of deceitful science, . . .
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-8355
and raised questions if the German theoretical nuclear physicist, Dr Carl von Weizsacker, was a Soviet spy who
1. Kept Hitler from building an atomic bomb and winning WWII
2. Kept the public from knowledge of nuclear energy after WWII
The IPCC models are wrong because the IPCC “Bad Science” is wrong. It will continue to be wrong as long as they believe that -24 ºF (-31 ºC) is going to “warm the planet” (the infamous “greenhouse effect”).
Along with the digestive biproducts of caviar and champagne.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“ Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, said he feared the intergovernmental panel, in writing its draft, had been influenced by criticism from climate doubters, who advocate even lower numbers. “I think the I.P.C.C. on this point has once again erred on the side of understating the degree of the likely changes,” Dr. Mann said. However, Christopher B. Field, a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science who serves on the panel but was not directly involved in the new draft, said the group had to reflect the full range of plausible scientific views. “I think that the I.P.C.C. has a tradition of being very conservative,” Dr. Field said. “They really want the story to be right.
So.
There you have it from the Gray Lady and two, count them two Top Notch Scientist Types. “…Erred on the side of understating the degree of likely changes”; and, “IPCC has a tradition of being very conservative”. And, “they really want the story to be right”.
Indeed. Let’s get that story right. Stay tuned.
“… influenced by criticism… ” Why just the other day I was told I was an idiot, a flat earther, and the earth was created in 6 or 7 thousands years. I guess I thought that there was and always has been free co2 in the oceans and all not locked up in calcium carbonate.
As if criticism has any influence at all. Even the communist from other communist countries didn’t show up for their parade in NY. Irony.
Or to their Climate Conference.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/22/u-n-climate-summit-is-high-profile-but-some-of-worlds-most-important-leaders-will-skip-it/
China is still considered communist, isn’t it? I think so.
Well those monkeys have to be coming out of some where other than his face because his oral cavity is constantly spewing a particularly smelly and gross amount of diarrhea.
The one criticism I have of this figure is that you’re pasting the forecast cone on the end of the data. This lets them off the hook. Temps could continue to flatline for another two decades, but as long as you paste the forecast cone on the end of the data it is still an outside possibility. It’s allowing them to move the goalposts.
It would be much better to post the forecast cones contemporaneous with the date the forecast was made. I would start with the 1990 cone coming off at the 1990 temperature, along with each subsequence IPCC forecast cone in different colors. If you can’t squeeze them all onto one graph, you could try stacking them vertically within one graph, or just use different graphs for each.